No. It is not clear at all.
Where is the difference between this case (where the police admit the man did not have to take a breath test) and Mr Tri Boy's, where all the site cops insist the cop was within his rights to demand a breath test? (except of course that Mr TB is not a cop) .In both cases the people concerned were in their homes. In both cases they had been seen driving some time earlier. In neither case were the police in pursuit. What is teh difference?
it is clear that if you are driving on the road , you must take a breath test anytime a cop requires it.
It is *very* far from clear to me under what circumstances a cop may force his way into your home and demand you take a breath test.
We have already seen (supra) that a passenger in a car can be charged with drink driving (even though he wasn't driving). And the site cops claim that you can be charged with drink driving in your lounge room . Even if you maybe haven't driving a vehicle in weeks . Can someone else in the lounge, who might have been the passenger in the car that you weren't driving , be charged with drink driving ?
This whole area seems to be a first class example of the way police powers creep beyond anything originally envisaged by Parliament. From demanding the right to test drivers at will , which parliament granted, the police are now claiming that this gives them the right to breath test ANY person , at any time , any place, including their own home, and if they fail the test charge them with drink driving. even if there is no proof that they have been driving at all, and , indeed, even if they can prove that they have NOT been driving.
And they want the public to grant them MORE powers? Piss off.
Originally Posted by skidmark
Originally Posted by Phil Vincent
Winding up drongos, foil hat wearers and over sensitive KBers for over 14,000 posts...........![]()
" Life is not a rehearsal, it's as happy or miserable as you want to make it"
kinda, but thats beside the point, and its no excuse.
moral virtue is what the police force should uphold, and they should take pride in it.
not entirely the fault of the force, more the vast amount of laws they have to uphold that protects us from ourselves, thereby making them cynical babysitters some of the time.
Winding up drongos, foil hat wearers and over sensitive KBers for over 14,000 posts...........![]()
" Life is not a rehearsal, it's as happy or miserable as you want to make it"
well I'm with the cops on this one............wrong. But then I'm only a civilian and expect Officers to know the law better than I do. Not slag other KBers on legal matters when they do not. I expect better from you guys.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/storie...8/12459ee91dda
Skyryder
Free Scott Watson.
Possibly goes both ways.
The laws of the land and moral virtue are two very separate things. If you have a country that legislates for moral standards and the national police service enforce those laws then I think you will find yourself living in a country not too dissimilar to Afghanistan under the Taliban or the present day Iran etc.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks